Strategizing International Tax Best Practices – by Keith Brockman

Tax Executives Institute (TEI) recently submitted a letter in response to requested comments by the OECD re: revisions to its transfer pricing guidelines.  The submission is well drafted and articulate, generally urging OECD to improve current practices rather than adopting new complex mechanisms.

An example of several suggestions is provided:

TEI suggests a number of elements should be included in future guidance to improve transfer pricing compliance practices. First, tax authorities should share their risk assessments with taxpayers so taxpayers can improve their compliance processes where appropriate, or engage in a discussion with tax authorities regarding their view of the taxpayer’s compliance risk. Second, to avoid transfer pricing disputes, Chapter IV should urge tax authorities to focus audit activity on transactions that are more likely to be tax motivated (i.e., between high and low tax jurisdictions), rather than simple intercompany transactions where the taxpayer makes reasonable efforts to price the transactions and where the possibility of a tax motivation is remote. For example, head office cost allocations between countries with relatively comparable tax rates should be viewed as low risk. Finally, the OECD should encourage countries to consider halting interest and penalties if dispute resolution takes longer than two years and if the country does not have a mandatory arbitration procedure.

 

TEI’s submission should be read in its entirety to further understand the direction of OECD and possible remedies in the complex world of transfer pricing.

Click to access TEI%20Comments%20-%20OECD%20TPG%20-%20Chapter%20IV%20and%20VII%20-%20FINAL%20to%20OECD%2019%20June%202018.pdf

The Supreme Court has held in the Mayfair case decided June 21, 2018, that physical presence is no longer required for a state to collect sales and use tax from an out-of-state seller.  Both out-of-state and foreign sellers will be affected by this ruling that overrules decades of sales and tax foundations upon which constitutional law was based.

Under National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U. S. 753, and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, South Dakota may not require a business that has no physical presence in the State to collect its sales tax.

The referenced Supreme Court decision and EY’s Global Tax Alert highlight this major development.

Multinationals will need to review all sales into every state to determine their domestic law, irrespective of prior Constitutional limitations for physical nexus.  

 

Click to access 17-494_j4el.pdf

Click to access 2018G_010006-18Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%2022%20June%202018.pdf

US tariffs: update

On 15 June 2018, the President of the United States (US) announced that the US will move forward and implement a 25% tariff on US$34 billion of goods from China that contain industrially significant technologies.

The proposed list of April 3 has been updated to the latest list as of June 15.

The deadline for submitting comments for the latest set of proposed items is 20 July 2018, while the deadline for filing requests to appear at the public hearing is 29 June 2018.

EY’s Global Tax Alert includes details on this latest listing, and also provides the following Best Practices on this topic:

  • Mapping the complete, end-to-end supply chain to fully understand the extent of products impacted, potential costs, alternative sourcing options, and to assess any opportunities to mitigate impact.
  • Identifying strategies to defer, eliminate, or recover the excess duties such as bonded warehouses, Foreign Trade Zones, or substitution drawback and their equivalent under China customs regulations.
  • Exploring strategies to minimize the customs value of imported products subject to the additional duties, re-evaluating current transfer pricing approaches, and for US imports, considering US customs strategies, such as First Sale for Export.

As this this latest round of tariff battles ensue, transfer pricing and other aspects of international tax are directly and indirectly impacted.  Thus, it is imperative to monitor the latest developments while developing possible plans of action.

https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/US_imposes_first_set_of_tariffs_on_China_origin_products_-_publishes_list_of_34_billion_in_goods_subject_to_additional_25_percent_duty_effective_6_July_2018/$FILE/2018G_03201-181Gbl_Indirect_US%20imposes%20first%20set%20of%20tariffs%20on%20China%20origin%20products.pdfUS

IRS recently updated its previously published Q and A’s re: application of Sec. 965 deemed repatriation tax instructions re: estimated tax payments for 2018.  The prior version still has a debatable Question 14 that applied a 2017 overpayment to the entire amount of deemed repatriation tax (not just the first installment) prior to application for the first estimated payment of federal income tax generally due April 15th.

As Question 14 was issued literally just prior to the first installment date, corporations may have missed this point and thereby would be subject to interest and penalty for late payment.

The latest update obviates such penalties if the second estimated payment is a cumulative catch-up amount for both the first and second estimates.  

However, what was not fixed is the apparent ability by IRS to apply the overpayment solely to deemed repatriation tax in its entirety prior to applying it to estimated federal income tax liability due.  This is still a question in the minds of many.  

EY’s Global Tax Alert highlights this development.

Click to access 2018G_03498-181Gbl_US%20IRS%20updates%20Section%20965%20transition%20tax%20FAQs.pdf

EY’s Global Tax Alert details several important global developments worth watching:

  • Phase 2 US tax reform – individual taxes, what else?
  • OECD’s first peer review reporting on BEPS Action 13: TP Documentation and County-by-Country (CbC) reporting (attached herein for reference)
  • EU Directive on cross-border reportable arrangements, reporting to commence in 2020 although effective date will be June/July 2018.  

The reportable arrangements are a must read for international tax colleagues to understand the impact of arrangements planned for currently that may become a transparent arrangement to be reported in the EU.

The OECD CbC report is also helpful to understand the trend that CbC reports will generate ongoing, and the viewpoint of the countries that administer this process.

The OECD BEPS Actions, including CbC reporting, significantly impact international tax compliance burdens and challenges going forward.  Additionally, US tax reform still has experts deliberating their practical application, notwithstanding future legislation.

Click to access 2018G_03277-181Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%201%20June%202018.pdf

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/country-by-country-reporting-compilation-of-peer-review-reports-phase-1_9789264300057-en#page1

The UAE has made significant changes to the rules re: ownership of foreign companies and visas.  A foreign investor may now own 100% of a company established in the UAE, regardless of economic zones, while certain individuals will be able to obtain a 10-year visa.

Both developments are significant for companies operating in the UAE, as it provides operational certainties as well as individual plans by professional expatriates living in the UAE.  Companies operating under the former rules may review the impact of these changes going forward.

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides details herein.

Click to access 2018G_03096-181Gbl_UAE%20to%20change%20foreign%20ownership%20and%20visa%20rules.pdf

The OECD is considering starting two new projects to revise the guidance in Chapter IV (administrative approaches) and Chapter VII (intra-group services) of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines.

OECD has issued scoping papers for public comments addressing transfer pricing disputes and intra-group services, provided for reference herein in addition to Deloitte’s Global TP Alert with insightful comments.

Comments on both subjects are due by June 20, 2018.  Both topics are significant, thus a review of the scoping paper focus is recommended, with an opportunity to provide comments.

Click to access dttl-tax-global-transfer-pricing-alert-18-013-11-may-2018.pdf

Click to access scoping-of-future-revision-of-chapterIV-of-the-transfer-pricing-guidelines.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/scoping-of-future-revision-of-chapterVII-of-the-transfer-pricing-guidelines.pdf OEC

Dutch TP decree

The Dutch Finance Secretary published a new transfer pricing (TP) decree, generally in alignment with OECD’s 2017 guidelines, with some caveats.

Observations:

  • The 2017 OECD changes were clarifying in nature, thus the guidelines apply to prior years
  • Aligned with OECD concept of (non) recognition of controlled transactions
  • The OECD Guidelines refer to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation (DEMPE) functions, although the development and enhancement functions will receive a higher rating
  • New guidance on a purchase of shares, followed by a restructuring
  • Public database results for economic analyses will be subject to further review
  • Simplified approach of cost + 5% is adopted for intra-group services

As some of the above concepts will be reviewed, and adopted, by other countries the new decree is a must read for TP professionals.

EY’s referenced Global Tax Alert provides additional details.

Click to access 2018G_02953-181Gbl_TP_Netherlands%20arms-length%20principle%20and%20OECD%20guidelines.pdf

The IRS is pursuing many avenues of guidance this year and next, including:

  • Proposed rules for US Tax Act Sec. 965 in August 2018, which should be just in time for the 1-year SAB 118 period that ends Q3 for calendar-year taxpayers.
  • Proposed rules for Foreign Tax Credit of the US Tax Act in August 2018
  • Proposed rules for GILTI in Sept. 2018 (hopefully this will allow consolidated calculation vs. separate shareholder chain rule currently written in the law)
  • Proposed rules for BEAT in October 2018
  • Other rules should follow in 2019

This guidance will hopefully clarify the above provisions to allow relevant tax planning, based on the certainty of the US Tax Act provisions.

EY’s Global Alert highlights these developments

Click to access 2018G_02785-181Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%2011%20May%202018.pdf

The confusion over details of the US Tax Act continues, among them:

GILTI: Literal application of the Sec. 78 gross-up component to the general basket (As a calendar-year public company nears the end of the year, this decision will become more significant as millions of dollars in tax liabilities and income tax provisions are in play)

GILTI: Vagaries into the US expense allocations, including interest and R&D

Interest: Interpretation (proposed regulations to be issued although no timeline, different types of business, gross receipts test

Upcoming Bluebook for issues needing technical correction, although political agreement may be difficult for such guidance

Technical corrections: slim chance this year

EY’s Global Alert provides additional details of these issues,

Click to access 2018G_02657-181Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%204%20May%202018.pdf

The referenced link provides information to the state of play re: EU State Aid rulings and investigations.

The list of final decisions adopted since 2014 concerning tax planning practices and the list of formal ongoing investigations is presented.

The letters provide comprehensive detail into the background of the investigations and rulings, providing insight for potential transactions that may be under review in the future.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/tax_rulings/index_en.html

US int’l developments

EY’s Global Tax Alert provides the latest US updates, noting the following:

  • Regarding the TCJA’s foreign derived intangible income (FDII) provision, a Treasury official was quoted as saying the Government is actively looking at how to apply the disqualification for related-party services that are substantially similar to services provided by the related party to US taxpayers.
  • A senior IRS official said the legislative history and the purpose of the provision strongly suggests that the Internal Revenue Code Section 78 GILTI gross-up should be placed in the GILTI basket. The official conceded that that interpretation is not in the statute, however.
  • Reflecting on the base erosion anti-abuse tax (BEAT), the official said Treasury is presently undecided if including a markup disqualifies the entire charge or just the amount of the markup for related-party services, that otherwise qualifies for the services cost method exception.

    The noted highlights are very critical in estimating the impact on financial statements, as well as compliance and planning opportunities.  To the extent timely guidance is not provided this year, there will be additional uncertainties in how to measure the effects of the complex Tax Act provisions.  

     

     

 

Click to access 2018G_02505-181Gbl_Report%20on%20recent%20US%20international%20tax%20developments%20-%2027%20April%202018.pdf

US Tax Act; SIT changes

The referenced link provides a copy of TEI’s submission that was provided earlier this year, as it is timely to address the numerous (and sometimes retroactive) changes that states are enacting to align with the US Tax Act enacted December 22, 2017.

The impact on public companies, from adopting state changes, and then sometimes amending such adoptions based on legislative challenges, is a daily / weekly review to incorporate all changes into a company’s effective tax rate through deferred tax impacts. TEI suggests a future deduction, over a number of years, to offset negative impacts on current earnings and minimize tax rate volatility.

Aside from legislative changes, there will be additional legal challenges as some states are trying to step beyond the boundaries of collecting a fair tax by including a portion of income and disallowing 100% of the deduction on the new Tax Act changes.

The article is well written and hopefully results in some states adopting some ameliorative measures.

Click to access 2018.02.14%20-%20SALT%20Policy%20-%20Deferred%20Tax%20Relief%20-%20FINAL.pdf

The referenced link is an excellent article written by  Ksenija Cipek in collaboration with Dr Manuel Pereira in an effort to promote transfer pricing simplification. Ksenija Cipek is the Assistance Director General for Legislation and International Cooperation at Ministry of Finance, Tax Administration of Croatia.

https://www.world.tax/articles/the-impact-of-the-advance-transfer-pricing-agreements-on-voluntary-compliance.php

Excerpts from the article

From all of this and despite the outstanding disadvantages, we can conclude that the APA is one of the measures that is affecting the increase in the number of voluntary compliant taxpayers, since the APA provides legal certainty, no instruments of tax auditing are initiated, the possibility of double taxation is eliminated, the reputation of taxpayers is strengthening and, last but not the least, resources are being saved on both sides. Furthermore, by introducing the possibility of concluding an APA in the legal framework of a given state, opportunity and incentive are being given for taxpayers to be voluntarily compliant. In this course of action, it will be important to exchange information with other countries and international organizations, to educate employees, to understand business processes and business transactions and, generally, market conditions and trends in certain business sectors.

To this end result, it is necessary and timely to regulate specific rules for applying APA to SMEs. The rules must be simple, responsive and cost-effective in terms of the cost of human resources, material costs as well as time-consuming cost. In that sense, it is necessary to make use of all available and modern technologies, such as web services etc. Some countries already have a regulated legislative framework specifically for APA applications to SMEs. However, this should not be an exception, but a rule, precisely because of the economic importance of these entrepreneurs in the economic development of each state.

Particular attention should be given to the simplification of transfer pricing documentation, for justified reasons and in the sense that SMEs will, generally, not have a lot of different transactions.

In order to increase the impact on voluntary compliance by as many taxpayers possible, irrespective of their size, this issue is one of the most important issues that deserve a legitimate focused attention on its capable and expeditious solution.

 

As multinationals commence to calculate the US Tax Act’s provisions for Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI), the literal language of the law and the Conference Report present a myriad of confusion.  The name of this provision is also a misnomer, as the income to be measured is not limited to that sourced from intangibles.

The intent of the provision, as explained in the Conference Report, is to provide a 10.5% (for 2018) tax on low-taxed earnings of foreign affiliates, as reduced by 10% of its tangible personal property measured by US tax principles.  This would be accomplished with an 80% foreign tax credit, thus legal entities in countries with a tax rate not exceeding 13.125% would not be subject to this additional minimum tax on foreign earnings.

Due to the speed of enactment, the technical details of the enacted law does not mirror this intent.  As a result, different US-based multinationals may be taking different approaches for measurement, ranging from the Conference Report intent to the enacted law which may not allow for any foreign tax credits based on the separate foreign basket approach coupled with uncertainty for the allocation of US expenses to such income.

This confused state will also present difficulties in measuring different aspects of this provision for different companies, depending on their interpretation and calculation.

Hopefully, this confusion will be clarified to align the law with the intent of the Conference Report.  Without such guidance, this provision will present undue costs, complexity and subjective interpretation going forward.